SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
50–579 CC
1998
RANGE ISSUES AND PROBLEMS WITH THE WILD HORSE AND BURRO ACT AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION
FIELD HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JULY 13, 1998, RENO, NEVADA
Serial No. 105–105
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
RICK HILL, Montana
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel
TODD HULL, Professional Staff
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
GARY GRIFFITH, Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held July 13, 1998
Statements of Members:
Ensign, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada
Prepared statement of
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni, a Delegate in Congress from the Territory of American Samoa
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah
Prepared statement of
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah
Prepared statement of
Statements of witnesses:
Abbey, Robert V., Nevada State Director, BLM
Prepared statement of
Additional material submitted by
Balliette, John, Eureka County Natural Resources Manager
Prepared statement of
Barcomb, Cathy, Executive Director, Commission for the Preservation of Wild Horses
Prepared statement of
Carpenter, Assemblyman John, Nevada Assemblyman
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dahl, Demar, Rancher
Prepared statement of
Additional material submitted by
Flake, Rey, Lincoln County Commissioner
Prepared statement of
Lesperance, Anthony, Ph.D., Elko County Commissioner
Prepared statement of
Rhoads, Senator Dean, Chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, Nevada Legislature
Prepared statement of
Rodriguez, Sheila Hughes, Counsel, Animal Protection Institute
Prepared statement of
Shroufe, Duane L., Director, Arizona Game & Fish Department
Prepared statement of
Tattam, David C.J., Field Director, National Wild Horse Association
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
BLM Management Plan
Sussman, Karen A., President, International Society for the Protection of Mustangs and Burros, prepared statement of
Communications submitted:
Fugate, Jon, Chairman, Legislative Affairs, Yuma Valley Rod & Gun Club, Inc., Yuma, Arizona, prepared statement of
Hazard, Holly E., Executive Director, Doris Day Animal League, prepared statement of
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Schutte, Larry L., Big Springs Ranch, Wells, Nevada, prepared statement of
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), prepared statement of
FIELD HEARING ON RANGE ISSUES AND PROBLEMS WITH THE WILD HORSE AND BURRO ACT AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION
MONDAY, JULY 13, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Parks & Public Lands, Committee on Resources, Reno, Nevada.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in the Washoe County Commission Chambers, Building A, Reno, Nevada, Hon. James Hansen (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Hansen, Faleomavaega, Pombo, Chenoweth, Ensign and Gibbons.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. HANSEN. The Committee will come to order. The Subcommittee on National Parks & Public Lands convenes for a field hearing on range issues with wild horses and burros and implementation of the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act.
When the Spaniards first came to America, they brought horses. Conquistadors like Cortez and Coronado lost a few horses during their campaigns and these horses migrated north and formed the foundation stock of numerous herds of feral animals in the wilderness of North America.
These herds of feral horses became an important source of riding animals for the plains indians and later the American pioneers. The herds were, and continue to be, supplemented by escaped farm and ranch stock. However, the feral burros are mostly descendants of 19th and 20th century escaped or released pack animals.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a note of clarification, I think it is important to mention that these horses and burros are not truly wild animals in the sense that bighorn sheep, mountain lions and bears are wild animals. These are domesticated animals that have gone feral. They are only wild in the sense that the alley cat down the street is wild.
As more of the West was settled and better riding stock was imported, feral herds became less important. In fact, they were quickly becoming a liability to ranchers and farmers who needed the land for domestic stock. Thousands of these horses were slaughtered to remove competition with domestic stock, to obtain meat for animal feed or for other purposes. Fortunately, these horses had some pretty good PR people working for them, and the American people mobilized in the late 1960's pushing for some sort of protection for these animals.
In 1971, Congress, finding that wild free-roaming horses and burros were quote, ''living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West,'' passed the Wild Horse and Burro Protection Act. The Act directed the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to protect these animals from destruction, to set aside range for them and to set up an adoption program for excess animals.
The intentions behind the Act were quite laudable. Unfortunately, things have not worked out quite as well as Congress anticipated. The range is becoming degraded, riparian areas are being destroyed, adoptions are lagging and cost millions of dollars a year to administer. The health of the animals on the range is deteriorating, disease is becoming a problem in many areas and the animals are competing with and driving out wildlife.
It costs $18 million a year to administer the wild horse and burro program. Last year, 8,692 animals were adopted. This works out to over $2,000 per animal, and yet, these horses sell for $200 per animal. Two thousand to sell a $200 horse. If any public land program could be called a subsidy, this would be it.
But we are not here today to talk about adoptions, because there are even bigger problems on the range. Some of the problems stem from the way the Act is implemented, others stem from the Act itself.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As our friend Pat Shea, Director of BLM, has noted, these animals are livestock, and we need to give the BLM the authority to start managing them as livestock. The BLM faces a lot of challenges as it tries to manage its feral animals on the public lands. We have given them laws and mandates to live by that are often contradictory, and generally they try to do the best they can to make sense of the whole mess. I hope we can figure out a way to make their job a little easier.
This hearing was scheduled in order to give environmentalists, Federal, state and local government officials and concerned citizens an opportunity to discuss some of the problems with implementation of the Wild Horse and Burro Act and to give people an opportunity to present ideas on how to improve management of wild horses and burros. I would like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for joining us today. I hope this can be a productive dialogue.
I will now turn to the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, for any opening statement that he may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
The Committee will come to order. The Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands convenes for a field hearing on range issues with wild horses and burros and implementation of the 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act.
When the Spaniards first came to the Americas they brought horses. Conquistadors like Cortez and Coronado lost a few horses during their campaigns and these horses migrated north and formed the foundation stock of numerous herds of feral animals in the wilderness of North America.
These herds of feral horses became an important source of riding animals for the Plains Indians and later the American Pioneers. The herds were and continue to be supplemented by escaped farm and ranch stock. However, the feral burros are mostly descendants of 19th and 20th century escaped or released pack animals.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a note of clarification, I think it is important to mention that these horses and burros are not truly wild animals in the sense that Bighorn Sheep, Mountain Lions and Bears are wild animals. These are domesticated animals that have gone feral. They are only ''wild'' in the sense that the alley cat down the street is ''wild.''
As more of the West was settled, and better riding stock was imported, feral herds became less important. In fact, they were quickly becoming a liability to ranchers and farmers who needed the land for domestic stock. Thousands of these horses were slaughtered to remove competition with domestic stock, to obtain meat for animal feed, or for other purposes.
Fortunately, these horses had some pretty good PR people working for them, and the American people mobilized in the late 1960's, pushing for some sort of protection for these animals.
In 1971 Congress, finding that wild free-roaming horses and burros were ''living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West,'' passed the Wild Horses and Burros Protection Act. The Act directed the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to protect these animals from destruction, to set aside range for them, and to set up an adoption program for excess animals.
The intentions behind the Act were quite laudable. Unfortunately, things haven't worked out quite as well as Congress anticipated. The range is becoming degraded, riparian areas are being destroyed, adoptions are lagging and cost millions of dollars a year to administer, the health of the animals on the range is deteriorating, disease is becoming a problem in many areas, and the animals are competing with and driving out wildlife.
It costs $18 million a year to administer the wild horse and burro program. Last year 8,692 animals were adopted. That works out to over $2,000 per animal. And yet these animals sell for about $200. $2,000 to sell a $200 horse—If any public lands program could be called a subsidy, this would be it.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But we are not here today to talk about adoptions, because there are even bigger problems on the range. Some of these problems stem from the way the Act is implemented, others may stem from the Act itself.
As our friend Mr. Pat Shea has noted, these animals are livestock, and we need to give the BLM the authority to start managing them as livestock. The BLM faces a lot of challenges as it tries to manage feral animals on the public lands. We have given them laws and mandates to live by that are often contradictory, and generally they try to do the best they can to make sense out of the whole mess. I hope we can figure out a few ways to make that job a little easier.
This hearing was scheduled in order to give environmentalists, Federal, state and local government officials, and concerned citizens an opportunity to discuss some of the problems with implementation of the Wild Horse and Burro Act and to give people an opportunity to present ideas on how to improve management of feral horses and burros. I would like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for joining us today. I hope this can be a productive dialogue.
I will now turn the time over to the Gentleman from American Samoa for any opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing this morning. I do want to also express my appreciation to the gentleman from Nevada, the host of our hearing this morning here in Reno. I want to also express my appreciation to all the witnesses who are scheduled for having their testimony before the Committee here this morning.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to participate in the Subcommittee's oversight hearing on wild horses and burros. To some, these animals are a beloved symbol of the west; to others, they are considered a nuisance. Either way, they are an important aspect of public lands management. Legislative policy on this important issue was established more than a quarter of a century ago with the passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 that declares that wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the west, that they contribute to the diversity of life forms within the Nation and enrich the lives of the American people. Although the Act has been in existence for nearly 27 years, it has been only in the last 2 years that the wild horses and burro program has come under significant public scrutiny.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Some months ago, an Associated Press report stated that despite the existence of current Federal law which is aimed at protecting these wild horses and burros, and with the implementation of a Federal adoption program for these wild animals, through individuals who qualified to adopt these animals, along with the pledges not to slaughter such animals, there are allegations that thousands of horses are being slaughtered and there are further allegations that BLM could not even account for some 32,000 adopted animals, and that even BLM employees may have been participants and may even have profited in the slaughter of thousands of wild horses.
Then there is also the question of title and ownership of these wild animals by their individual adopters. And if title is given to owners of these animals, can they transfer such ownership or title for purposes of selling the animal to a slaughter house company that makes dog and cat food items, which today is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Mr. Chairman, I am aware that a number of concerns have been raised about the BLM's management of wild horses and burros, particularly its adoption procedures. I also know that the BLM has undertaken a number of reforms in the programs in the past 18 months. I am here today to listen and learn how these reforms are working, as well as whether the overall program is achieving the intended purposes of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act.
I appreciate the presence of your witnesses again, and I look forward to their testimony. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank the gentleman for his comments.
Our host is Mr. Jim Gibbons, our Congressman from this area. I turn to the representative from this area, Mr. Gibbons.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And to you, as the Chairman of the Committee, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Faleomavaega of American Samoa, I want to welcome my colleagues and all of you here today to Reno for this hearing. And on behalf of the people of the state of Nevada, I want to say thank you for your concern about the wild horse and burro issue, and especially for conducting a hearing today, in which bringing Congress to Nevada brings our representation to the people, which I think is an important part. So I applaud you on your leadership of this issue and again welcome you here to Nevada.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, as you have eloquently stated in your remarks, the wild horses in Nevada, as well as the rest of the United States, have roamed the ranges here since the late 1500's when Spanish conquistadors explored north into North America from Mexico. These animals are not native to the west, they are feral. The horses and burros were released either—or lost by the Spanish, which grew wild on the fenceless ranges here in the west, and today, nearly 500 years later, their legacy lives on. Nowhere is this more prevalent than here in Nevada, home to about 60 percent of the wild horses, 60 percent of the 43,000 that roam the public lands of the west.
Unfortunately many problems of the management of today's wild horses and burros have met with public scrutiny. The current over-population, both on and off range, threatens the wellbeing of the environment, strains the resources of the BLM to sustain excess animals that have been removed from the range.
Another concern is, the gene pool of these wild herds is degenerating as healthier, stronger animals, those more suitable for adoption are selected and removed from the range.
Now this Committee, I am sure, with the help of the public and the BLM can resolve many of these issues. That is why I have asked you to bring this hearing here today to Nevada so that we can hear more about this very important issue.
1971 public concern for the humane treatment of wild horses and burros persuaded Congress to pass the Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. This Act referred to the wild equines as living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the west and declared them an integral part of the natural system of public lands. The Act granted authority to the Secretary of Interior to oversee and manage wild horses and burros. The herds are to be managed at a minimum level, allowing them to truly be free roaming and wild. However, strict language in the Act requires their numbers to be restrained to prevent damage to the range and other species.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Each year the BLM helicopters and riders round up excess horses and burros which are offered for adoption to the public and a nationwide adoption program. Unfortunately though the BLM is presently sheltering more than 6,000 unadopted wild horses and burros, these animals are costing the taxpayers about $50,000 a week. Many have become unadoptable, and in many instances, due to old age and the present spread of disease, have precluded their successful adoption. Also, these unadoptable animals are being held contrary to the resolution set forth in the Act of 1971, and done so at a great expense to taxpayers as well as we mentioned previously. Unfortunately many of these animals are destined to live out their days as Federal welfare cases as facilities across the United States are filled beyond capacity. Without adoption or commercial demand the horses and burros are consigned to death in captivity. A situation which is ironic at best considering the attempt of the statue to preserve them.
The Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act mandates unadopted animals to—and I quote—''be destroyed in the most humane and cost efficient manner possible.'' That same fate is designated for old, sick or lame animals. However, the BLM is not fulfilling this unpleasant but probably necessary responsibility. The BLM has resolved to reduce the total population to a little more than 27,000 equines; however, neither a time table nor the resources are adequate as proposed to accomplish this goal.
Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the remainder of the time this morning my written comments. I look forward to the witnesses, and I would also like to ask that for purposes of submission for the record that I be allowed to enter into the record a copy of the Nevada wild horse management plan for Federal lands, which has several recommendations within that, for the record for the Committee to review on this issue.
Again, I want to thank you for having this hearing hear today. I look forward to the testimony that we are about to receive from these panels of well known and educated individuals on this issue. Certainly it is time that Congress take a look at this very expensive case and have a look at the total cost of where we are going, how we are getting there and how the management of these animals is predicted and taking place for the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for having this hearing.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons. Without objection, your entire testimony and the testimony on the BLM management plan will be included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Chairman:
On behalf of the people of Nevada and all states concerned with wild horses and burros, I would like to thank you for conducting this hearing today in Reno.
As you may know, wild horses and burros have roamed the ranges of Nevada since the late 1500s when Spanish conquistadores explored north from Mexico.
The horses and burros left, or rather lost, by the Spanish grew wild on the fenceless range. Today, nearly 500 years later their legacy lives on.
Nowhere is this more prevalent than here in Nevada, home to over half of the 43,000 wild horses and burros that roam public lands in the west.
Unfortunately, many problems challenge the management of today's wild horses and burros.
The current overpopulation—both on and off the range—threatens the well-being of the environment and strains the resources of the BLM to sustain excess animals that have been removed from the range.
Another concern is that the gene pool of the wild herds is degenerating as healthier, stronger animals—those more suitable for adoption—are selectively removed from the range.
I feel this Committee, with the help of the BLM, can resolve this situation. That is why I asked the Chairman to hold this hearing today.
In 1971, public concern for the humane treatment of the wild horses and burros persuaded Congress to pass the Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This Act referred to the wild equines as ''living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West,'' and declared them ''an integral part of the natural system of the public lands.''
The Act granted authority to the Secretary of the Interior to oversee and manage wild horses and burros.
The herds are to be managed at a minimum level—allowing them to truly be free-roaming and wild. However, strict language in the Act requires their numbers to be restrained to prevent damage to the range and other species.
Each year the BLM helicopters and riders round up excess horses and burros, which are offered for adoption to the public in a nationwide adoption program.
Unfortunately, though, the BLM is presently sheltering more than 6,000 unadopted wild horses and burros. These animals, which are costing taxpayers $50,000 dollars a week, have become unadoptable in many instances due to old age and the spread of disease.
These unadopted animals are being held contrary to the resolutions set forth in the Act of 1971—and done so at a great expense to taxpayers. Unfortunately, many of these animals are destined to live out their days as Federal welfare cases, as facilities across the U.S. are filled beyond capacity.
Without adoption or commercial demand, the horses and burros are consigned to death in captivity—a situation which is ironic at best.
The Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act mandates unadopted animals to ''be destroyed in the most humane and cost efficient manner possible.''
The same fate is designated for ''old, sick, or lame animals.'' However, the BLM is not fulfilling this unpleasant, but necessary responsibility.
The BLM has resolved to reduce the total population to 28,000 equines, however, neither a timetable nor the resources have been proposed to accomplish this goal.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many times I have heard the BLM claim that they do not have the necessary tools to properly manage the wild horses and burros program. Therefore, I call on the BLM to recommend legislative solutions, after taking careful consideration of today's testimony, to ensure proper management of wild horses and burros.
It is important to remember that the success of feral horse management will depend upon accurate scientific information and collaborative participation by all groups potentially affected by horse management.
My desire is to develop a realistic management strategy so that a healthy band of wild horses and burros freely roam our public lands for generations to come. The future of our rangelands demand no less!
Again, Mr. Chairman I would like to thank you for allowing us to have this hearing today, and I look forward to the testimony from our distinguished panels.
Mr. HANSEN. Our other Nevada host is Congressman John Ensign. We will turn to Congressman Ensign for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just make a few brief remarks and ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be made part of the record.
Mr. HANSEN. Without objection.
Mr. ENSIGN. As a veterinarian, this is an issue that I have followed over the years, and having dealt with a lot of different animal issues over the years, I find that—and one of the reasons I went into veterinary medicine was partly because—and mostly because the emotions that you have for animals. I think the reason that a lot of people are involved with animals is because of the emotional attachment that becomes part of that. But I also learned as a veterinarian working with various groups over the years that that emotional attachment sometimes can be more damaging to the animals that you are trying to help than pure science and objectivity would bring us in the end. So that is one of the things that I am interested in listening to today.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I will not be able to stay for the whole hearing, but I will be interested in reading some of the testimony and some of the questions and answers later. How much of the policy is actually being directed based on pure emotionalism? How much of the policy is being directed on what is truly best for the environment, best for the animals in the long-run for the overall part of the population, and truly how are we getting to where we are going and the thought processes along those lines.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I welcome you here to our great state of Nevada. We always say as Nevadans that it is the greatest state in the country and now you are here to experience why we believe that, so welcome.
Mr. HANSEN. Well thank you, Mr. Ensign. We appreciate your comments.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Pombo.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ensign follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Good morning, it is a pleasure to be here today in Reno, discussing an issue that is important to the people of Nevada. I am grateful to Chairman Jim Hansen, and the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands for scheduling this hearing. I would also like to extend my appreciation to all our witnesses that have gathered today and taken time out of their busy schedules to provide their perspectives and possible solutions to our wild horse management dilemma.
This hearing will provide an excellent opportunity to listen to the views of state and local officials, officials from the Bureau of Land Management, and concerned citizens. Participating in an open dialogue is the first step in finding solutions to the problems facing the BLM as they continue the ongoing management of wild horses.
In 1971, Congress declared that wild horses and burros were ''living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West'' and passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. The Act provided for the protection, management control, and control of wild horses and burros on the public lands, and directed the Department of Interior, specifically, to manage the wild horses and burros.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is unfortunate that the current situation isn't what Congress had anticipated. Both Federal protection and the absence of natural predators have contributed to the growing populations of these animals.
Currently, there are an estimated 43,000 wild horses and burros found in the West and more than half of them are found right here in Nevada. As we look closer at the situation, we find the range land is deteriorating, with many of the riparian areas destroyed, and other natural wildlife suffering from a decreased availability of food and water.
There have also been many recent reports questioning tbe health and stability of many of the wild horses roaming our range. These factors obviously impact the Bureau's ability to manage and successfully adopt these horses.
It is my hope that through the medium of this hearing, we will be able to examine some possible solutions to this problem, for the benefit of the horses, and the benefit of the public. I am anxious to hear the points of view from our panelists. I am confident that we can examine possible alternatives that would provide for the adequate management of healthy wild horse herds, while still maintaining a healthy and diverse ecosystem.
Mr. POMBO. I have nothing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. The gentlelady from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I have nothing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. With that, we will turn to our first panel. Our first panel is Robert Abbey, Nevada State Director of BLM. If you gentlemen would like to come up. Mr. Dean Shroufe—Duane Shroufe, excuse me, Director of Arizona Game & Fish Department; Senator Dean Rhoads, Chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee of the Nevada Legislature and Mr. John Carpenter, Assemblyman in Nevada. If you folks could all come up, we appreciate you being here. As you probably are aware, we normally in this Committee limit the statements to 5 minutes. If you go over a tad, I can understand. We want to hear this testimony, this is very important for us. But if you can kind of keep it in that area, and keep in mind that all of your entire statements will be included in the record. So if you want to abbreviate those, at your wish, that would be fine.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Abbey, we will start with you. Pull that mike up. How this light system works is just like a traffic light. You go at green, at yellow you start winding it up and at red, we will not give you a ticket. Depending on how good your testimony is, we might let you go on. I am just kidding, of course. You just go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. ABBEY, NEVADA STATE DIRECTOR, BLM
Mr. ABBEY. Thank you. I am Bob Abbey, State Director for the BLM here in Nevada, and like our distinguished Congressmen from Nevada, I too would like to welcome you to Reno. This is a great state.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this morning's hearing. Due to our time constraint, I will provide the Subcommittee with a quick overview of the Bureau of Land Management's wild horse and burro program, highlighting those actions that are presently being taken to address the many issues associated with this program. However, I do ask that my prepared statement—copies which have been made available to you—be entered into the record since it provides additional information which might be of interest to the members of this Subcommittee.
As already communicated, since the passage of the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro, Act wild horse herds have flourished and these animals are in no danger of extinction. In 1971, it was estimated that between 10,000 and 17,000 wild horses and burros roamed the west. Today there are approximately 43,000 wild horses and burros on the public land, including an estimated 22,000 in Nevada.
In this state, the BLM manages 99 herd management areas encompassing over 16 million acres of public land. We are establishing appropriate management levels—or AMLs, as we commonly refer to it—through our multiple use decision process, which involves interdisciplinary monitoring of resources and evaluations to determine if multiple use and rangeland standard objectives are being met.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the end of fiscal year 1997, AMLs had been established on over half of Nevada's herd management areas and our goal is to have those numbers established on all herd management areas by fiscal year 2000. We have been removing excess animals at a rate allowed by funding and facility space, and we have successfully achieved AML in many areas.
In herd management areas where we have achieved and are maintaining AML and working cooperatively with the permittees to develop better livestock management practices, we have seen a steady improvement in rangeland conditions. We have therefore demonstrated that wild horses and burros can be managed within a thriving ecological balance with other rangeland uses.
The BLM has focused its efforts on reaching AMLs by addressing population increases in herds through gathering excess animals, removing them from the rangelands and placing them with qualified adopters. Although the Act itself permits the humane destruction of animals, Congress has prohibited the destruction of excess healthy animals since 1988. The Adopt-A-Horse-and-Burro program is, therefore, the only tool the BLM currently possesses to manage the excess wild horses and burros removed from the range. So far in fiscal year 1998, we have gathered almost 4,000 animals in the western states and adopted almost 6,000, with most of these adoptions occurring in the east. We currently have 3,400 animals in our holding facilities.
The BLM has undertaken a number of initiatives geared to increase adoption demand and ensure the humane treatment of animals placed with qualified adopters. We have scheduled an additional 10 adoption events in the six western states that administer the wild horse and burro program to address adoption interests in these states.
Nevada historically does not have a large adoption demand, but at the three adoptions that we have sponsored in this state this year, we have adopted 65 animals. An additional 111 animals have been adopted directly from our holding facility in Palomino Valley this year.
The BLM has begun a pilot project using the Internet to increase public awareness of the adoption program and to accept adoption applications. So far, 15 of the 25 animals featured on the Internet have gone to new homes.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In conclusion, the BLM is making every effort to maximize adoptions while maintaining our emphasis on finding good homes for all adopted animals. We are moving ahead with research on fertility control through the use of contraception. We are looking forward to receiving additional recommendations from the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board, which was reinstituted this year to address public criticism and perceived deficiencies within the program. All recommendations from the advisory board will be acted upon in a timely manner to take full advantage of new ideas which might increase efficiencies within the program and improve the health of our public lands.
Mr. Chairman, the BLM-managed wild horse and burro program is one of the most scrutinized programs I have ever dealt with. Everyone has opinions on how best to manage this program, and you will hear several people offer their insights to you this morning. The one principle I believe we all agree on in dealing with the challenges associated with wild horses and burros on the public land is the need to maintain a consistent population level that the resources can support. I think we can best accomplish this by:
(1) establishing appropriate management levels in all herd management areas based upon the best range science and monitoring information currently available.
(2) controlling the reproduction rates of horses and burros on the range through contraception.
(3) making available sufficient financial resources to gather and adopt the numbers necessary to keep a consistent population on the range.
And finally, humanely destroying those animals that are too old, sick or disabled to survive independently.
There may be other ideas from panel members which I would be interested in hearing, as I am sure you are, so I will conclude my statement at this time. I do however plan to stay for the entire hearing, so I will be available to respond to any questions that you might have now or later. Again, thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Abbey. Mr. Shroufe.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abbey may be found at end of hearing.]
STATEMENT OF DUANE L. SHROUFE, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA GAME & FISH DEPARTMENT Mr. SHROUFE. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Duane Shroufe and I am Director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
On behalf of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and Department, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to provide comments on the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and its implementation in Arizona. I would respectfully ask that my written statement in its entirety be submitted and on the record.
Mr. HANSEN. Without objection.
Mr. SHROUFE. I look forward to presenting information regarding the Act and its implementation in Arizona and to discuss ideas on how to improve management of feral horses and burros in order to protect our public lands.
In Arizona, wild horse and burro management is primarily associated with burro management on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. However, burro management issues on lands not administered by the BLM are of increasing importance in our state, due to the lack of management, increasing numbers of burros and resource damage by burros on these lands. These lands include National Wildlife Refuges, state parks and lands managed in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. We have a special area, the Arizona Game and Fish Department's Alamo Lake wildlife area. This area is dedicated to the management of the fish and wildlife resources and to fish and wildlife related recreation. The Arizona Game and Fish Department realizes that the BLM faces numerous challenges in order to manage feral burros on public lands in the state of Arizona. From the Arizona Game and Fish Department's perspective, the most significant of these challenges include:
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(1) eliminating or minimizing adverse impacts to the wildlife habitat. These habitats include native wetland and riparian habitat and sensitive wildlife species habitat;
(2) completing burro population inventories, estimating population densities and maintaining existing appropriate management levels;
(3) collecting data to determine the level of impacts to wildlife habitats associated with burro use and overpopulation;
(4) dealing with burro overpopulation and expansion outside of established herd areas or herd management areas; and
(5) obtaining funds and manpower to remove burros from areas where there is overpopulation, expansion beyond herd area boundaries, or resource damage.
From the early 1980's to present, we have focused our efforts on working cooperatively with the BLM and other agencies to collect data in order to document this resource damage. Also, the Arizona Game and Fish Department has collected data on burro habitat use, resource damage to wildlife habitats and burro numbers and distribution during our ground and aerial wildlife survey efforts. Adverse impacts by burros on native riparian, wetland and upland habitats in Arizona have been documented in BLM land management planning documents, in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service evaluations and by the Arizona Game and Fish Department's observations and studies.
Although some burro removal efforts have occurred in Arizona since the Act was passed, current burro numbers in many Arizona herd management areas are estimated by the BLM, the Arizona Game and Fish Department and other agencies to be much higher than the existing appropriate management levels. And many of these areas are not in a thriving natural ecological balance.
For example, the Black Mountain herd management area has an appropriate management level of 478 burros, but the population is estimated to be over 700 burros. The Big Sandy herd management area's estimated burro population is around 300 while the appropriate management level is set at 139. The Alamo herd management area has an estimated appropriate management level of 200 burros, but the population is estimated to be between 500 and 600 animals.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In Arizona, BLM suspended most, if not all, significant burro removal efforts as a result of the 1989 IBLA decision regarding removal of excess free roaming horses in Nevada. Arizona BLM through land management planning efforts is proposing to manage burros in all Arizona herd areas. In other words, the BLM is planning to designate all herd areas as herd management areas in the state.
At the time the Act was passed or soon thereafter, some areas of distribution or herd areas, as they are called, were prescribed for zero burro numbers due to one or several manageability concerns, such as land status and threatened and endangered species issues. However, Arizona BLM is now proposing to manage burros in all herd areas for a thriving natural ecological balance even though the same manageability concerns exist today.
In Arizona, burros are expanding into areas where they have not been documented before and have clearly expanded outside the boundaries of the established herd areas and herd management areas. These problems are due to the lack of significant burro removals in Arizona. In the last few years, Arizona BLM has indicated to the Department and other agencies there are limited funds available for burro management, including removals in the state.
To improve management of feral burros and in order to protect our public lands in Arizona, burro management must be given a higher priority and funds must be available to manage burro populations in accordance with the Act.
We have several suggestions if I may just take the time to make those recommendations:
The Act itself may not be the problem. Rather, the problem appears to be the lack of compliance with the Act. This is likely due to different agency priorities, the lack of sufficient funding and opposition to responsible and proactive horse and burro management pursuant to the Act.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We need to improve the information and education regarding burro numbers in Arizona and the associated damage to the resources.
We need to improve inter-agency planning and management efforts to address the burro issues in our state.
We need to evaluate all available methods for reducing horse and burro populations provided for in the Act.
We need to exclude horses or burros from sensitive wildlife habitats such as riparian zones through fencing projects.
And most importantly, increase funding for burro management in the state.
The department looks forward to working cooperatively with the BLM and other agencies to address this issue in Arizona. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Senator Rhoads.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shroufe may be found at end of hearing.]
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DEAN RHOADS, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, NEVADA LEGISLATURE
Senator RHOADS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Dean Rhoads from Tuscarora, Nevada. I am a rancher, I raise and sell both cattle and horses and I am also a Nevada State Senator. I wanted to thank all of you for coming to Nevada and coming and revisiting this issue that has been around for a long time.
It is quite interesting to note as I was flying down here today, I recall one of my first trips to Washington, DC, I was in Walter Baring's office, Mr. Hansen might recall. At that time there was 51 bill drafts in there on wild horses and he thought he had selected the one that was most reasonable, and I am sure if he was around today, he would be astounded as to what has happened.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also, about 25 years ago today—not today, but I was invited to my first Congressional hearing to testify up in Billings, Montana on the Wild Horse Act. And me and Velma Johnston, who was Wild Horse Annie and others testified. At that time, John Melcher, another veterinarian, was the Chairman, and I questioned the way the Act was being administered then and I really question the way it is being managed today.
This Act, 1972 was the first year it began, cost $400,000. Last year, it cost $18 million to manage the wild horses. So far, it has cost the taxpayers a quarter of a billion dollars over 27 years. The horse herd now, as you have heard many times, is 43,650. It costs $369 to feed one of those horses out there. As a person who receives part of my income from horse sales, I cannot survive with a cost of $369 per year.
Nevada, of course, has the largest share, 22,835, while the appropriate management level is 14,430. It is interesting to note that the appropriate management level, both nationally and in Nevada has never been met since the inception of the Act, in 27 years.
As a cattle rancher, I take great interest in the condition of the range. Fortunately, I do not have wild horses in my allotment. We have three stud bunches, probably 60 head of horses out on my range where my livestock run. I have toured various ranges where wild horses graze and it is a sad sight. The range condition is down to nothing, as bare as this table top in many places in the past few years.
Some major changes must be made to the Wild Horse Act of 1971. While as I understand it, the Wild Horse Act of 1971 gave the BLM the authority to destroy unadoptable excess animals, the Director of the BLM and the Chief of the United States Forest Service made a decision in 1982 not to use this authority. However, I just recalled Director Abbey stated the 1988 Congress also made that same change. I was not aware of that.
The Act should be amended that would give the BLM the authority to sell to the highest bidder the excess horses. We in our operation send to the sale horses that have been injured, crooked feet or just simply we cannot sell. We just sent a couple of loads, one load 2 weeks ago. Why can't the government be allowed to do the same thing?
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think there are other proposals, some have been tried previously and not worked, but I think you should take a good look at them again:
The gatherings could be conducted annually by private parties or permittees under contract with the U.S. Government. I think we could save the government a lot of money.
Provide for more wild horse preserves like the one in Pryor Mountain in Montana in the west on a combination private and public lands with management of these preserves being by private parties under supervision of the government. The private sector can definitely do it cheaper.
Then you could remove all the other horses from the west on much of our grazing lands.
We manage all activities on our public lands by controlling numbers, except wild horses. Ranchers, through the Taylor Grazing Act and so forth, they tell us when, how many and under certain conditions that we have out there. Wildlife, if numbers get too big, the Department of Wildlife increases the tags. The present program of gathering horses and releasing the sick, lame, old and unadoptables is about the most poor management practices as we in the ranching business could adopt. If we in the ranching business adopted such practices, I am sure we would be broke in 3 years.
Another problem I have with the adoption program is it is in competition with the private sector that sells horses. It costs the Federal Government $369 per year to keep a horse. Say they adopted that horse at 3 years old, that is $1,107, and then add the gathering costs of $1,100 per horse, you have over $2,200 into that horse. Then the BLM sells it for $125. The taxpayer picks up the tab for $2,075 for each horse.
I recently was contacted by a large ranch in Elko County that wanted to buy two horses. We spent part of a day working out several horses to pick from and had them priced from $1,200 to $2,000, the going price, only to be informed days later that they had bought two head at the BLM sale for $125 each. There were 5,937 horses that was put out for adoption in 1997 by the BLM for $125. We cannot compete.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ladies and gentlemen, you have a difficult task and will have to make some tough and unpopular decisions. The most important decision you can make in my mind is to give the authority to the government agencies to sell the excess horses to the highest bidder. Give them sales authority and the major problem with management of the wild horses will be solved.
Good luck and I offer my assistance at any time.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Senator.
Would you hand the mike down to Assemblyman Carpenter, who will be our next speaker. Mr. Carpenter.
[The prepared statement of Senator Rhoads may be found at end of hearing.]
STATEMENT OF ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN CARPENTER, NEVADA ASSEMBLYMAN
Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you. For the record, John Carpenter, Assemblyman, District 33, representing Elko County, and I want to thank the Committee for being here and listening to this testimony.
I think that after 27 years, maybe finally we are starting to turn the corner on what has been a very serious problem, especially in the state of Nevada. Last session of the legislature, we passed legislation that requires our Wild Horse and Burro Commission to come up with a Nevada plan, to put the Nevada brand on a plan for the management of wild horses.
I would just like to take a couple of seconds and say that I have had a lot of experience in wild horses. When I was growing up as a young fellow down in Ely, where my uncles had an allotment. We had two or three bands of wild horses on there, but we managed them, we kept the numbers down. Our neighbor, he had 1,000 wild horses and never did sell any of them. You can imagine what the range looked like. So at a young age, I learned that you have to manage the horses. We love the horses, we want them out there, but they need to be managed so that they do not destroy our range. I believe I was the first person that ever used a helicopter to gather wild horses. So I think that I have had experience through my lifetime to be, hopefully, a so-called expert on it.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I believe that the Wild Horse Act has been gutted through misdirected regulations, through judges who did not understand the west, did not understand the wild horses, we have practically rewritten the law. As Dean Rhoads said, I think that Congressman Baring would turn over in his grave if he knew what had happened to his Wild Horse Act. It was not too bad of an Act as originally written, but we have gotten completely away from it.
I think that we have to get the numbers established on these wild horse areas. The Bureau has established some of these numbers on some areas, but they do not have them all. And I heard Mr. Abbey say, you know, maybe in 2001 or 2002, I think we need to put a priority on this and get it done within a year. If we can get the numbers set, then we need to gather the horses down to that number. What is happening now, they go out and they gather the horses but because they say that anything over 9 years of age is unadoptable, they turn them back out. And so in some areas, there is darn near as many left after they gather as there was before. This does not make any sense. We need to gather them down to the appropriate management level. I do not think anybody has a problem if we would gather them down to that level.
And the horses that are left there should be from the same bands—horses have great family instincts. If you gather a bunch of horses into a corral and there is room enough, in just a little while, they will all be there within their family units. We need to leave these family units out on the range. It does not make any sense to bring all these horses in and to start picking them out and start to destroying these families. That is what is happening to our country now, we are destroying families, and we are doing the same thing with the wild horses. We need to leave the best families out there, the ones that are able to make the best living, the ones that look the best, we need to leave them.
And then after we have done that, after we get the horses down to a reasonable level, then we need to, I believe, start using some cooperative agreements. I believe that there are a lot of groups out there that if you had the horses in a certain area down to appropriate levels, there are a lot of groups out there that could keep the numbers down—wild horse groups, wildlife people, ranchers, horsemen's organizations, even some counties would be glad to help on this situation. I think this is the only way we are going to be able to cut these costs, and that is to get everybody involved. Like if you are supposed to have say 50 or 75 head out on a certain area, it does not take too much to go out there every year or so and take 10 or 15 percent of them. You do not have to do it with a helicopter all the time. You know, some guys still like to play cowboy and go out and rope one or two. Or you can water trap them. And it is not a big deal. But what happens when the Bureau lets them buildup to 600 or 700 or 800 head and there is only supposed to be 75 there, we know what is happening to the range. And then they go out and they gather and maybe they are going to gather them down to the 75 head, well they gather them all and then they turn 500 more out because they will not be adoptable, according to their standards. This is wrong.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And then those animals that are unadoptable and after they have been in the holding facilities for a certain length of time, we have to put these animals to sleep humanely. I believe that we are doing that with the other animal populations in this country. If we did not, we would be absolutely overrun with dogs and cats. We need to apply the same thing to the horses. And it is going to be a tough deal. There is nothing worse that I have had to do in my life than to destroy a horse, but sometimes you have got to do it if we are going to be able to get this program where it is manageable. After we get it down to where the numbers are where they should be, there are going to be plenty of people to adopt them, but we need to make those first critical, hard decisions.
Thank you people for being here. I do appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Carpenter.
I will recognize members of the Committee for questions of this panel for 5 minutes each. The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions. Mr. Abbey first, I do not know if you will be able to help me, but you seemed to be the expert just for the state of Nevada but not for the whole regional area on BLM. But I will give it a shot and I will understand if you are not able to respond.
Hearing from our other witnesses, Mr. Abbey, I get the impression with an $80 million program, we cannot even account for how many horses and burros we have out there. Is this just by some estimates or do we have an accurate accounting on this? Not just for the state of Nevada but for the whole region or the states that do participate.
Mr. ABBEY. The numbers of horses and burros that we have on public lands are estimates. In most states we have 3-year cycles where we go out and do census within the herd management areas to ascertain to the best of our ability how many horses or burros are currently living within the herd management areas. But in response to your question, they are estimates.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Are there any—I think maybe one of the things that we ought to also explore is to find out exactly the origin, how this whole thing came about. It was not because it was the will of our policymakers, this came about because of the grassroot support from children all over the country. And for some reason and perhaps because of the allegations made about the slaughtering of these wild horses. And so Congress turned around in 1971 and we enacted this legislation to protect them. Some 27 years later now, have we basically protected the wild horse? I mean they are not ending up in slaughterhouses now, are they, Mr. Abbey?
Mr. ABBEY. Well, I certainly cannot sit here and say that there are not wild horses that may wind up in slaughterhouses, but in response again to your question, the wild horse is not in danger of being extinct. The populations have increased substantially since the estimates were devised in the early 1970's. We estimate that there are approximately 43,000 wild horses on the public lands, which is a substantial increase since the passage of the Act.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. On the basis that we have enacted this law since 1971, what do you honestly believe that we ought to do statutorily and how to go about doing this, or do you think that under the implementation of the Act, you can still promulgate regulations to provide for this control, because that seems to be the problem we have here? We have got the enacting legislation since 1971, but by way of regulations, we seem to get fuzzy on this. And is it true that some 32,000 horses cannot be accounted for since we implemented this program?
Mr. ABBEY. I think to a large degree that figure is a result of the system that we had in place for tracking horses once they were adopted. That system has been greatly improved over the last 5 years and I can guarantee you we can pretty much track every horse that has been adopted through the Bureau of Land Management's adoption program certainly in the last 4 or 5 years.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Act itself, which was passed in 1971, is sufficient to address the many issues associated with the wild horse and burro program. And therefore, I am not going to recommend that there be revisions made to the 1971 Act.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would like to ask Senator Rhoads to help me on this. You suggested selling excess horses to the highest bidder. What do you intend to do with these excess horses if it was put out in the private sector?
Senator RHOADS. Thank you. Well, I would think—when I send horses to the sale, I sell probably 90 percent of my horses on the ranch, on private treaty, but there is occasions that either the horses are not that—confirmation-wise—as well as they should be, they are lame or might have been born with crooked feet, I send them to the sales yard. And I usually do not go to the sales yard so I have no idea who buys them, but I assume that some of them are bought by people that take them home and break them. Others are probably bought that ends up in the slaughterhouse. But that is just the thing that we have been doing for centuries. And we do have a soft spot in our heart, the horses that we ride and retire and they do a good job, we just let them die on the ranch. But we do sell a number of horses. In fact, my neighbor this week, today, is coming down to buy some of my horses because they are shipping a whole semi load to the sale because they are old and crippled.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. One more question, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Abbey. What is the BLM policy about these lame and crippled horses? Are they to be put to sleep or are they then sent to the slaughterhouse?
Mr. ABBEY. No, we do not send any horses to the slaughter house. We have the draft, which I would be happy to share with the Subcommittee here, policy that was approved by the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board this past week when they met, addressing humane destruction of wild horses and burros. If I could, I will read from this, it says, ''Bureau of Land Management authorized officer may authorize the humane destruction of a wild horse or burro with any of the following conditions: Displays a hopeless prognosis for life; suffers from a chronic or incurable disease or serious congenital defect; requires continuous treatment for the relief of pain and suffering; is incapable of maintaining a body score greater than 1 in a normal rangeland environment.'' And it goes on. I would be happy to make this available to the Subcommittee if you would like. Again, it is a draft policy that was presented to the National Advisory Board last week. It was approved by the National Advisory Board and so I would expect that this would come out in final very shortly.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Abbey, I would like for the record, Mr. Chairman, if the BLM would submit as much as possible how many horses exactly were sent to the slaughterhouse that was supposed to be under the auspices of the BLM's supervision. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ensign.
Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of questions.
First of all, at least in an article, Pat Shea had said and Bob, you had talked about that the estimate on the horses, you were not really exactly sure and he said at least in this article that the estimate could be much higher, not just a little bit higher, but much higher. Do you have any feel for how high the number may be?
Mr. ABBEY. Well again, we are fairly comfortable or confident in the estimates that we have come up with for the herd management areas in Nevada. I will say this, that based upon our estimates we are projecting that the populations in Nevada are increasing approximately 24 percent per year. Now given that, it would not take but 3 or 4 years before that population would double in size. So it is very important that we maintain significant gathers to remove excess horses off the herd management areas. We have estimated that there are approximately 22,000 horses and burros on herd management areas in Nevada. We are also presently working with the Air Force through technology that they have, to try to see if there is additional information that they can share with us from some of the work that they are doing to validate the number of wild horses on our herd management areas. We should have some pretty good information from the Air Force within the next, I would say, 2 to 6 months.
Mr. ENSIGN. You said earlier that the 1971 Act is adequate. Given the current situation with the way it is being managed, you said that the population can double. Can you just comment on what is going to happen when the doubling does take effect if indeed the current situation stays the same, it doubles—what is going to happen to some of these riparian areas, what is going to happen—you know, basically across the board ecologically, but also what is going to happen to the animals, especially if we run into some drought years like we had. I have never seen this state so green as it is this year, but this is an unusual year. What is going to happen in normal years?
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ABBEY. The moisture certainly makes us all look good in land management. The accurate response to your question is that there would be severe suffering on the part of the animals if there continues to be overpopulation of the horses. As a result, you would also see significant degradation of the natural resources including riparian areas. The horse, just like any other animal, is going to search for food and they will eat what is available to them at any place on the range. And therefore, unless there are continuing efforts to reduce the population of the horses and bring the numbers down to appropriate management levels, I think you would see some suffering on the part of the animals themselves and certainly degradation to the natural resources.
Mr. ENSIGN. I would like you to also comment, there has been brought up about, you know, I guess when Darwin wrote his theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest, what we seem to have here is an unnatural selection and survival of the unfittest, because the fittest are being adopted out and now we have the unfittest left on our public lands. Can you just comment on the BLM and what your experts are telling you what is happening to the gene pool?
Mr. ABBEY. We are trying to use our best judgment at these gather sites so that we can leave fit horses out on the range to continue a viable healthy population of horses within the ability of that resource to sustain that herd. We do have a policy in place that prevents us from removing excess horses that are 9 years or older to put into the adoption program. So horses that we are gathering out on the range that fall within that category, that are 9 years or older, we are leaving out on the range and we are taking the younger horses for the adoption program.
Mr. ENSIGN. But what is going to happen long term to the gene pool?
Mr. ABBEY. Again, what we are trying to do is to ensure a viable healthy population of horses by leaving sufficient stock and quality of stock out on the range so that we do not end up with just a bunch of older horses out there that would basically create deficient——
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ENSIGN. The reason for my question was that is not the reports that I am hearing back. The reports that I am hearing back are that these animals are not the fittest, you know, that there are not enough of them and the gene pool is deteriorating dramatically.
Mr. ABBEY. Well, I do not think it is deteriorating dramatically, I think that is an overstatement. Again, I think that we are doing our best to make sure that there is a viable population of good stock of wild horses left on the range.
Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Pombo.
Mr. POMBO. No questions.
Mr. HANSEN. Mrs. Chenoweth.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of questions. I wanted to ask Mr. Abbey, you said, or I understand that most of the gathers are done by helicopter?
Mr. ABBEY. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Has the BLM really given much thought to having some sort of a private gathering because as I understand it, helicopter, the rotor really upsets the horses.
Mr. ABBEY. It certainly adds to their stress level.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Have you thought about having some sort of a partnership with private ranchers on the gathers?
Mr. ABBEY. We are certainly interested in any proposal that we get from ranchers or anyone for that matter regarding reducing stress on the horses during a gather. I was certainly interested in Mr. Carpenter's statement and I certainly support what he stated, that there are opportunities for us to work very closely with counties, ranchers and many other entities within the state, not only this state but in every state, to gather horses and to do so in a more cost-effective manner. It is certainly something that we would be interested in working with our Resource Advisory Councils regarding those recommendations and we would entertain any proposal from anyone in this state that would be interested in working with us to help us gather excess animals.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I was interested in Mr. Shroufe's testimony about the increase and I saw in Mr. Rhoads' testimony, one of the enclosures, was a graph that showed down here the AMLs, but up here actual levels of wild horses and in some years it has tripled the AMLs and so with that in mind—and I assume this comes from the BLM.
Mr. ABBEY. If that is not our chart, we have one very similar to it.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. All right. We have an endangered species that is listed here, the tortoise, some tortoise that is listed down here in Nevada. How does the increase in the wild horses affect those endangered species? There are also some other endangered species that cattle and the AUMs have been managed according to the endangered species? How does an increase like this, sometimes tripling the level, affect the endangered species?
Mr. ABBEY. If there is a significant increase in the number of horses or livestock for that matter, within those desert tortoise habitats, there certainly is cause for concern. In the case of the desert tortoise, we have prioritized those areas, those habitats, and have achieved or at least established appropriate management levels within all of the desert tortoise habitat and we are—if we have not achieved AML in each of these desert tortoise habitats, we are rapidly working toward achieving AML within those with endangered species—so that we can protect the endangered species.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Based on this graph, one would assume that if there are units that we have not achieve the AMLs, they would not be large in number, would they? Because this graph indicates right now a population of two to three times the amount of the carrying capacity.
Mr. ABBEY. We have achieved AML in many of the herd management areas to date.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. And just one final question. In your determination with regards to how you manage certain units, the AMLs and how you make that determination, do you make a conscious decision to reduce the AUMs based on the AMLs?
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ABBEY. The multiple use decision process that we use to establish AML—we also use that process to establish the carrying capacity of that range to support livestock and also to provide estimates of what the range could support to the Division of Wildlife for their use in setting numbers for wildlife. The total number of Nevada animal months authorized presently is 1,566,266 and this includes cattle, horses and sheep. There has been, at least in 1998, there has been a reduction of approximately 22,500 AUMs based on the carrying capacity of the range, but not all the reductions are the result of establishing AML. Some of those reductions—in fact, there is a proposed reduction in the Elko District Office of the Bureau of Land Management as a result of a proposed land exchange. Allotment evaluations also result in increases in AUMs. For instance, the number of AUMs authorized in 1997 was an increase of 50,600 over the previous year. So we do fluctuate in the number of AUMs that are authorized.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. So when the herd rises two to three times above the AMLs, then you are still reducing AUMs based on the numbers in the herds, right?
Mr. ABBEY. Yes, ma'am, there could be a reduction in the number of AUMs on that particular allotment based on overgrazing by not only livestock but overgrazing by—or at least—I will not use the term overgrazing, but grazing over and above the proficiency of the range to support that grazing. And we would also hopefully go in and reduce the number of horses on that same allotment. That has not always been the case.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would hope you would too, sir. Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Abbey, does the BLM have a written policy on the selection gathers?
Mr. ABBEY. Yes, sir, we do and I could certainly make that available to you.
Mr. GIBBONS. Would you make it available this week to us?
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ABBEY. We sure can.
Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. Mr. Abbey, you also heard Senator Rhoads talk about a private cooperative management with BLM oversight, which could effectively reduce the cost to the taxpayers for much of the management and gathering of these wild horses. What is your position on his proposal?
Mr. ABBEY. Well actually right now, Mr. Gibbons, we are looking at a proposal that has been brought to our attention from a ranch in Arizona to use those ranch lands for placing horses after being processed at the Palomino Valley corrals here in Nevada. We would ship those horses to this ranch in Arizona where they would be placed until the adoption cycle can pick up so that people can begin adopting those horses.
Mr. GIBBONS. Well, that is the adoption cycle and I understand that very well, but I was thinking more of the habitat management, range management with wild horses using private entities to ensure that there is proper management with just BLM oversight of that proposal is I believe what Senator Rhoads has indicated earlier, not the adoption process and the distribution that he talked about as well, but the management of the wild horse habitats and the management of the horses themselves being run by the private sector.
Mr. ABBEY. Given the significance of the issues that we are facing in this program, we would certainly entertain any proposal that Senator Rhoads or others would present to us regarding such partnerships. We would weigh those proposals based upon the provisions of the Act itself, what we are allowed to do either by the Act or by policy and then we would certainly weigh the cost benefit associated with the proposal to see if it makes sense.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Abbey, you mentioned also and submitted a copy of a draft policy on wild horse management practices. Are you going to open that policy up for public comment as well?
Mr. ABBEY. Well, the—you are talking about the one that I just passed up there?
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GIBBONS. Yes, sir.
Mr. ABBEY. Quite honestly, Mr. Gibbons, I do not know what the intent is. It is out in draft, it was presented to the Advisory Board, the Advisory Board reviewed it and they made recommendations to the Director that it should be adopted. Given that, I am not aware of any plans to go out for public comment regarding that policy. I would say this, that the policy itself is consistent with the 1971 Act.
Mr. GIBBONS. I have also heard you talk earlier about your support for the status quo of the 1971 Act without any amendments or changes, even though we have seen in testimony either through you or the other gentlemen here that there are a number of problems both in the management, herd size, habitat management, expense of managing all these horses. I am perplexed why the administration either through the BLM or Department of Interior has not proposed changes up to this point that would remediate those concerns and wonder exactly why you want to hold the line to the status quo rather than moving forward with sound innovative science and solutions to these problems that could be effected through legislation.
Mr. ABBEY. Well, not knowing what may be proposed through legislation, it is hard for me to address what might be. But I——
Mr. GIBBONS. Well this begs the question, why do you not propose the legislation.
Mr. ABBEY. I think that there are sufficient flexibilities within the 1971 Act that would allow us to address the many issues associated with wild horses and burros on public land. The actions that we take on the public lands have come about through an awful lot of public involvement and certainly public input regarding the policies that we are adhering to relative to management of public lands—excuse me, wild horses on the public lands.
So we believe that staying the course and given the sufficient funding to gather the number of excess horses—as Mr. Carpenter pointed out, once we achieve AML on public lands, I think that would be the biggest hurdle that we have facing us regarding this horse issue. And once we achieve AML—based on the estimate that I have been given for Nevada—all we would need to stay consistent with the AML is gather around 3,000 to 3,500 horses per year.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, let me say, as my time has expired here, that reaching a 27,000 AML over 27 years seems to be an elusive goal that has not yet been met by the Bureau even though a quarter of billion dollars has been spent in that effort. I am not sure how long, how far and how much we are going to have to go to reach that appropriate management level, but we certainly need to do something in order to achieve that goal. And thank you for the time.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.
Mr. Shroufe, you pointed out that you are Director of Fish and Wildlife in the state of Arizona. That means, as I understand it, that you have complete care, custody and control of all of the animals within the state, is that right?
Mr. SHROUFE. Mr. Chairman, that is correct, the wildlife animals.
Mr. HANSEN. Wildlife.
Mr. SHROUFE. Wildlife, that is correct.
Mr. HANSEN. Now these are wild and free-running burros that you have got down there and I assume some horses, but you do not have any control there?
Mr. SHROUFE. We do not have any control over those, those are all governed by the 1971 Act.
Mr. HANSEN. So what do you do as Director when they——
Mr. SHROUFE. Well, we depend on cooperatively working with the BLM and trying to ensure that those populations first are in line with the goals that we set and second that they are not harming the habitat.
Mr. HANSEN. In effect, if they somewhat ruin habitat for other types of wildlife, what do you do?
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SHROUFE. The only success we have had so far has to do with when we get a biological opinion on an endangered species, then the BLM is more apt to prioritize that and take some action against that. But when it comes to degradation of the habitat for mule deer or just other general wildlife species where there is not a Federal hammer hanging over their head, it seems like it is not a priority, and I say that probably in a lot of unfairness because they are strapped by funding. We just need more funding to help us out of this management hole that we are in. And I also testified that I guess I felt that the Act is not broken, we just need to administer the Act and we have not nearly administered the Act in Arizona to the degree that BLM has tried to administer it here in Nevada with wild horses, we have not got to first base on that.
Mr. HANSEN. It has almost been sacrosanct through the years that the local state manages the wildlife within the state.
Mr. SHROUFE. That is correct.
Mr. HANSEN. Fish, game, the whole nine yards.
Mr. SHROUFE. That is correct.
Mr. HANSEN. And now here we have made an exception, just like BLM now has an exception that they are managing a monument, the first one in the history of the nation, it's called the Grand Staircase Escalante, which is a rather sore point with me, but I will not get into it.
Anyway, carrying that on, I think the comment of our two elected officials here is interesting. You know, Senator Rhoads points out that possibly the unadoptables should be put on the market and say all right—and at that point the market, whoever buys them, does whatever they want to do with them, just like they do with cattle or sheep or chickens or whatever. What would you think—if I asked the two legislators here, what would you think if the Congress gave to the state the right to manage wild horse and burros with very limited parameters, what would you think you would do?
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Senator RHOADS. I think that No. 1, we would ask for sales permission. You know, contrary to public opinion, there is a lot of wild horses out there today that are actually being ridden for saddle horses, and some of them are even showing some wild horses. So 100 percent of your wild horses that goes through the process of sales authority would not end up being slaughtered, I am sure. We would manage down the numbers. I have never talked to one rancher that wants to see 100 percent of the wild horses taken off of the map, it is the prettiest thing you can see, a bunch of wild horses or my stud bunch up there on the skyline with the sun setting and so forth. So we would manage them down to the appropriate level but we would have to have sales authority to do it, I am sure, and we would probably put up some vistas and interpretive centers and so forth. But we would like the numbers down to where it is manageable.
Mr. HANSEN. Senator, I think the key words that you are bringing up is you said you would manage them to an appropriate level. In other words, you are telling us there would be a cost benefit in here, there would be a range benefit in here, there would be a benefit for the public to see these horses, type of thing. Rather than just say whatever it is we are going to pay it.
Senator RHOADS. Yes.
Mr. HANSEN. And by that, I would also assume that you would cull the herd if old and sick ones were there and that you would reduce it to the amount that you could manage on a certain range area and that they would probably have veterinarians look at them and take care of them and all that type of thing. Would that be a correct statement?
Senator RHOADS. Oh, very definitely. We would manage them just like we manage our cow herds today.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Carpenter, did you want to respond to that?
Mr. CARPENTER. I certainly basically agree with what Senator Rhoads has said. I just think that the state could do a much better job of managing the horses than the BLM has or the Forest Service, and I think cooperatively with all of the entities in Nevada working together that we could get a handle on this in a short period of time. We either have to have the right to sell the horses or we have to have the right to, like I said before, to put the unadoptables to sleep. But I think that we could do it and I think that we could probably do it with much less cost than the BLM is doing it. Another thing Senator Rhoads mentioned is interpretive centers or whatever, I think that is very important to have that. The way it is now, people that are interested in wild horses, they do not know where to go to view these animals. They are riding down the road and most of the time, you know, when they have got enough job to keep the kids quiet and keep the car on the road, let along to look for some horses. But if they knew where to go and these horses were managed properly within these centers, I think it would be a great thing for the people that really appreciate those horses.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. How do you think the Senate and the General Assembly would respond?
Mr. CARPENTER. I believe that we would respond very favorably because like I said before, we had a bill adopted to come up with a Nevada plan and I think it passed unanimously, and I think it is a problem we have here in Nevada and I think that Nevadans are used to taking care of their own problems.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Abbey, it is kind of sacrosanct in this country if I read the Constitution right, the private property. What do you do if you get wild horses on private property that you folks, Federal Government, BLM, is responsible?
Mr. ABBEY. If the private landowner has such horses that have crossed from public lands onto private lands, all he has to do is give one of our closest offices a phone call and we will go gather that horse or the horses.
Mr. HANSEN. And if there are horses on his property, say he has a very large ranch, you will go out on that ranch with his permission and remove those horses, is that right?
Mr. ABBEY. That is our standard policy.
Mr. HANSEN. Have you ever done a cost/benefit analysis on what this wild horse thing costs us per horse?
Mr. ABBEY. I have not done one personally but I can tell you that it is not cost beneficial. There is quite a bit of subsidy associated with this program. We have never tried to hide that fact. Again, what we are doing is following the law and the policies that have been enacted by the Bureau of Land Management as a result of public input.
Mr. HANSEN. Cannot argue with that, I think you are right, but there is no cost benefit and there is a huge subsidy here.
Mr. ABBEY. There is a huge subsidy.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HANSEN. Sometime Congress is going to have to come to grips with the Endangered Species Act, the Horse Act, things such as that. When you are going to put out $200,000 per desert tortoise in an area, that gets awfully expensive. But anyway, that is just my own humble opinion, it does not matter here.
Thank you. We thank the panel for your very interesting comments and we will look forward to your written statement. One thing as I read your draft here that you just submitted, it does not say a thing about adoptables, which worries me a little bit. Was that brought up when you discussed it?
Mr. ABBEY. I was not at the meeting, but I can tell you that the older unadoptable horse is the biggest challenge that we have in this program—what do you do with those older unadoptable horses.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you so much for your testimony, we appreciate it and we will excuse this panel and call our next panel.
Our next panel is Anthony Lesperance, Ph.D., Elko County Commissioner; Rey Flake, Lincoln County Commissioner and John Balliette, Eureka County Natural Resources Manager. Have I got that all right? I hope I did.
Commissioner, we will start with you, sir.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY LESPERANCE, Ph.D., ELKO COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Mr. LESPERANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. My name is Tony Lesperance, Commissioner, Elko County.
I would like to take a little different tack in this. This statement presents factual data obtained entirely from the BLM sources, be it the web page or FOIA requests.
Initially, Congressional funding for this program remained low, first exceeding one million dollars in 1975. Funding remained below $6 million annually until 1985, when it jumped to over $17 million and it has remained in the $15 million to $17 million range ever since. To date, Congress has spent $246 million on this program. I guess one could logically ask has the expenditure of nearly one quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayers' money resolved the horse problem by achieving the stated BLM goal of obtaining the appropriate management level or what is known as the AML, which means a stable population of 27,000 animals.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The first year of agency reported numbers was 1976 when the population was estimated at 60,100 head. That number remained nearly constant through 1984. A significant increase in the appropriation occurred in 1985, which resulted in a decrease in numbers. However, since 1987, the decrease has been minimal.
Data from the estimated year end horse and burro population is presented in what you have before you in table 2. In an attempt to understand the significance of data in table 2, four mathematical representations of the set of data were considered. The best overall fit of a mathematical expression of the data was obtained using logarithmic equation. What this indicates is that as the population approaches the AML, the more difficult it will become to obtain the AML. The 1976 determined level of horses and burros was 60,100 head. The stated AML was 27,000 head. The 1996 estimated year end population was 42,138 head. Thus, after 21 years, some 54 percent of the goal has been obtained. If these data were indicative of a straight line regression equation we could assume in about another 20 years of reduction at the present rate of budget allocation, the AML goal would be attained. However, the data indicate that this is not a straight line relationship, that in fact every year the goal becomes more difficult to attain. The above equation is telling us plain and simple the stated AML goal, given the present parameters will never be attained.
Between 1976 and 1996, some 164,581 animals have been removed for an average annual removal of 7,837 head. Initially, this level of gather seemed to bring the population down, but as the data in table 2 clearly indicates, its effect is becoming less and less with each passing year. Congress tripled appropriation for the program in 1984, going from $5.8 million to $17 million. During the following 3 year period, some 40,606 head were removed, yet the year end population decreased only 17,000 head. It is common knowledge that when numbers of any population are reduced, there is a tendency for that population to increase its reproductive rate. Sometimes the remaining population will simply be younger, more dynamic, resulting in a better rate of reproduction. Sometimes it is a built in function of the population being more in balance with its ecosystem. Regardless, it would be very predictable that the free roaming horse and burro population of the western states would significantly increase its reproduction rate after some 67 percent of the population was removed over a 3-year period, and apparently that is precisely what happened.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If numbers are to come down to the AML, the projected numbers for removal will have to be increased if the goal is ever to be attained. Practically, can this be accomplished with the bureaucracy associated with a Federal organization such as the BLM? An examination of the budget for the program for the period of 1990 to 1994 suggests why this will be difficult to accomplish, which appears in your table 4. In 1990, some 20 percent of the budget for the program was spent on overhead, but by 1994, this had increased to 33 percent of the budget. It is predicable that the bureaucratic cost of operating the program will escalate to the point that annual gathers will decrease in numbers so that year end populations will likely start increasing. It is obvious that the Wild Horse and Burro Act will never be able to accomplish the AML goal of 27,000 head without significantly increasing Congressional funding. Further, it is also obvious that maintenance of an AML will not be accomplished, if ever attained, without significant longstanding financial support.
The cost of removal of a single horse since the inception of the program is now nearly $1,400 per head, which will only continue to escalate. At some point, the patience of the average American taxpayer must be considered. As a taxpayer as well as a county commissioner, I must strongly urge you to realistically consider alternative concepts such as privatizing the gather and simply using the BLM for licensing and overseeing. Provisions could really be made for a dual program of adoption and humane disposal to cover the cost of operation. The Congressional management of the wild horse and burro program is typical of the many resource problems faced in the west today. It represents an attempt by Congress to micro-manage a few million dollar problem that could be managed far more effectively at the local or state level.
A very effective argument can and has been made over the very ownership of these animals and that argument does not support Federal ownership. They are wildlife within the state and in Nevada, wildlife is the property of the state. Perhaps the real question for Congress to resolve is not the management or the cost of the management of these animals, but in fact to determine what truly constitutes a Federal feral horse or burro. Correctly resolving that issue will go a long way to removing the frustration this program has caused for Congress to date.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, sir, appreciate it. Commissioner Flake.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lesperance may be found at end of hearing.]
STATEMENT OF REY FLAKE, LINCOLN COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Rey Flake, I am a Commissioner in Lincoln County and I thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee and I thank you for your interest in the public lands and for making this attempt to come to the west to have this hearing.
I am a fifth generation rancher—at least five generations that I know of, of my ancestors have made their living off the land. They have passed a great legacy on to me and a great legend that we have talked about. I know that there is no way to have a viable ranching operation without healthy lands. Lincoln County is 98.2 percent public lands. Public land management has a great impact on Lincoln County and our ability to provide services to the people that reside within our boundaries. I have at least two generations following behind me in the ranching business.
The other day, I went to a branding with my sons and we took a break. I noticed that there was seven boys there from 10 down to one and a half, that was involved in what we were doing. The realization came to me that among these young boys not only the future of the livestock industry but the future of healthy viable resource management was there. If we do not bring them up with a love for the land and teach them how to manage well, then our nation and our resources are going to be the great loser.
I have a great concern for the direction that is being taken on public lands, a little AUM cut here and there that amounts up to a lot over the aggregate, over the total period. It amounts to our ability to be economically independent. I am able to perform services in my operation because I have the economic ability to be there.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Wild horses and burros, it is amazing to me that since the Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971, all of the players that seem to know how to manage wild horses and burros were immediately set aside and forgotten and a new team came in and tried to manage the horses and burros. We have not even identified how many the resource can handle—21 years and we do not even know what the appropriate AML is. The adoption program is slow and inefficient at best. It was reported to our Resource Advisory Council in March that over 6,000 head were in the adoption pipeline at a cost of nearly half a million dollars a month. Today, there are still over 4,000 in there with a great cost.
Correct science will show that there is a limit to what the resource can handle. The adoption program states that if we cannot adopt the horses, we turn them back on the range. We are letting the adoption run the whole program and not the resource. If I had a pasture that would run 40 cows and I put 80 cows in that pasture, I know that in a short time I am going to use up all the available feed. Then I will not be able to go back to the 40 cows, I will have to completely remove the cows until new feed is grown and so I can go back on there with an operation. We should understand that our whole horse program is in jeopardy if we cannot control them to manage and take care of the resource. We must check the direction of the whole wild horse and burro program. If you are trying to find a point with a compass, if you are two degrees off when you start, when you get out there 100 miles there is a wide gulf between where you were trying to go and where you end up. We must continually recorrect the course and redirect our area, and this has to be done through help from local people.
What are we trying to accomplish with the wild horse and burro program? Is this truly to be a legacy of the old west? I find it offensive that people think that my ancestors did not manage better than what is being managed in the wild horse and burro program, that we just turn them loose and let them run wild and do not take care of them. We have created a bureau that has accountability without—that has authority without accountability or responsibility, the fact is a whole department. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the wild horse and burro program.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This program has to be a resource driven program and not an adoption driven program. The BLM needs to have sale authority if only on a one time basis to achieve appropriate management levels. It is estimated that in the Ely District there are presently about 2,000 head over AML and about 13,000 head over in the state. We must control the numbers. We have got to manage, we must have a quality program and not a quantity program. We should involve local government and local permittees. I believe we should allow the permittees in some areas to control the horse numbers under the direction of the BLM. This could be done on a trial basis with a few ranchers at a great savings to the taxpayers of this nation.
We need to consider the idea of having one or two herds of horses in each state. These could include, as has been said, interpretive centers, a place where people could park their RVs and come to center their vacation around and learn about horses and be involved in horses and gain more enjoyment from their horses and then we would truly begin to develop a legacy of the west.
Ranching on public lands is also a legacy of the west. Let us consider the preservation of this legacy. I want my children and grandchildren to enjoy the same blessings that I have enjoyed from living close to the land. It is going to take us all working together to accomplish this. I hope that we can.
Thank you.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Balliette.
The prepared statement of Mr. Flake may be found at end of hearing.]
STATEMENT OF JOHN BALLIETTE, EUREKA COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGER
Mr. BALLIETTE. I brought some photographs. These are copies and if your Committee would like to have them for future reference, I would be happy to leave these with you. A photograph says a thousand words. Ray touched on it a little bit, I would like to talk about accountability also.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the winter of 1993–1994, we had an extensive snow followed by a lengthy cold period. This animal died standing up trying to punch his way through a snowdrift. This is an animal that died right alongside the Railroad Pass, the road that connects Jiggs, Nevada with Diamond Valley, this animal was very weak. Notice the damaged sagebrush up here, they had tramped it and eaten it. Sagebrush is not a nutritious nor palatable forage plant. This animal, weakened by starvation could not make it over a berm left by a snow plow, died right next to the road. Here is another one, a mare and her colt, this is the south facing aspect with the rocks there. The snow would melt a lot faster here than in the adjacent areas. The mare undoubtedly drawn down by starvation and then she had the added effect of nursing a colt. Well, the mare died first and you can see where the colt had tried to suckle the dead mare before he finally died.
In terms of accountability, if I owned those animals, my accountability would be I would probably have animal violations charged—filed against me, you know, and rightly so. I am not suggesting that we should start filing charges against BLM folks, but I really feel strongly that when we have these die offs like have occurred twice in the last 5 years, Railroad Pass, Long Valley, several other places in central Nevada, 2 years ago at the Nellis Air Force range. When these die offs happen, we should take a review of this and say hey, was there some information we could have collected that would have, you know, predicted that this was going to happen, could this have been avoided? Are people collecting all the information necessary to make management decisions? And if they find some folks that are not—that may be in some way responsible for this, perhaps their talents should be used elsewhere besides the horse program.
In my written testimony I talked about Fish Creek allotment and what happened there when BLM does not stand up to their end of the bargain for multiple use decision. This is winter fat, this is the plant I told you about in my testimony. Winter fat is this gray-green shrub here, and it is probably—I will defer to the nutritionists, but it is probably the most nutritious and palatable range plant that we have as far as a native plant in central Nevada. It is also highly desired by livestock, horses, wildlife. This photograph was taken in August and this is about the time the winter fat has the majority of its growth and it is also previous to use by horses. When we went back in in February, there is a close up and this is a general view, and you can see that there is virtually nothing left. This is solely due to horses. The horse appropriate management level is 75 head. When they flew this in January of this year, I believe the number was 230. There is still approximately 500 head of horses on the entire HMA.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The accountability part that really bugs me about this is that the livestock industry, it has been pounded into them, you cannot treat Federal lands like this. If you do, you will be decisioned, your numbers will be reduced, your season of use will be changed. This is solely due to horses, there have not been livestock since the decision was issued in 1994. Basically, you know, the way I look at things is that we as citizens are being held to a higher level of accountability to agency decisions than the agency that issued the decision.
When you look at this, the problem is simple, it is too many horses. This is not rocket science here, you know. The solutions that we have presently are not working. We have an adoption program that seems to be the tail wagging the dog here, and it cannot handle the excess numbers that we are generating as far as horses. I heard mentioned recently—earlier—of fertility control. On this particular allotment when the Bureau did their analysis for a fertility program, they estimated it will take 9 to 13 years to reach AML with the implementation of fertility control. The problem is this degradation is continuing, it is continuing as we speak.
Just to give you an idea, these are utilization cages. A utilization cage is used supposedly to protect vegetation. You can see here where the horses have tramped down the cage and then the uneven level of vegetation. Well that is what lengths they went to get something to eat there. And it is still pretty bad. The biologist in me, this is what scares me the most and this is a winter fat site that is now a collection of Eurasian annuals such as halogeton and clasping pepper weed and various mustards. We have converted a very productive site to a patch of weeds that are not very productive.
One of the solutions I hope you would consider is sale authority. I envision a different type of sale authority, limited sale authority where when we have vast—well, when we have population numbers that greatly exceed AML where we are doing damage to the range resource, that is an emergency and it requires emergency action and perhaps to go back in and sell some of the excess numbers right there once you reach AML, then sunshine sale authority.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I see I am out of time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Balliette may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I recognize the Committee for 5 minutes each. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I listened intently to the testimonies that were given previously as well as our friends now before the panel, I think we are beginning to lose what really was the essence as to why this Act, how it all came about with Wild Horse Annie and the thousands of children across the country, because of the indiscriminate slaughtering of horses that ended up in the slaughterhouses and became a major aspect of the pet industry. And I think this is really the essence. You know when we talk about Gene Autry and Hopalong Cassidy and Roy Rogers, bless his heart, who just passed away, and John Wayne—we all romanticize the idea that horses are pets, they are not like cattle that we eat and consume. And so we come to this—now look at this situation, we could not have asked for a worse agency to manage horses because they are not experts in managing horses. And I am talking about the Bureau of Land Management, with all due respect. It just happens to be that horses were incidental to the public lands which is owned by the Federal Government, administered by the Bureau of Land Management, so they had to come up with some kind of a program. And now we end up with a $247 million expenditure in the 27 year period that we have not even accomplished doing that which we were trying to do, to protect wild horses and burros and to continue the pioneer spirit that horses were a beast of burden, they were really a help to man. And I do not know if my colleagues are aware, I am sure they may be, and members of the public here, horse meat is found in the most expensive restaurants in France and New York and Paris. When we talk about consuming horse meat, you do not want to hear that in America. And I think this is really the bottom line. We talk about slaughtering horses and we put them to sleep, because we treat them almost like fellow human beings, or are they to be used for economic reasons. I am very curious what percentage of horse meat goes into the pet industry, the pet food industry—what it was 27 years ago and what it is now. So I think this is really the bottom line issue that I would like to pursue.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And gentlemen, do not get me wrong, I really, really appreciate your testimony. Mr. Balliette, I think you hit it right on the nail. You have reaffirmed the fact that we just have done a very poor job in managing what millions of children, hundreds of thousands of children throughout America just did not like the idea of indiscriminate slaughtering of horses, as a sentimental value—and I for one look at horses almost as a fellow human being, and this is really the crux.
Now it has been suggested that we ought to give it to states to manage our wild horses. It just happens that these horses are not on state lands, these are on Federal lands. So I raise that question, Mr. Chairman. I do not have any questions of our witnesses, but I would like to add I want to thank you for your testimony.
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from California, Mr. Pombo.
Mr. POMBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Flake, you are a cattleman and we looked at figures of as much as $1,400 per head on management of these animals for every one that is removed. That seems way out of line to me in terms of management of livestock. Can you give the Committee an idea of what the annual cost is of an animal say on your ranch?
Mr. FLAKE. Our cost of operation is just a little over $250 a head on the ranch.
Mr. POMBO. So you would consider this figure high?
Mr. FLAKE. Absolutely, unreal.
Mr. POMBO. And am I to understand that you run cattle on public lands?
Mr. FLAKE. Yes, sir.
Mr. POMBO. What would happen if you managed your allotment to the degree of these photos that we have seen?
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FLAKE. I would be out of business, both from regulation and also out of business because there is no way to handle a livestock operation without available forage, without available feed—it cannot be done.
Mr. POMBO. I would like you to explain the first part. You said you would be out of business because of regulation. What do you mean by that?
Mr. FLAKE. I mean that if I could not do any better job on the public lands than that, the Bureau would pull my permit and I would be gone.
Mr. POMBO. Because you overgrazed it?
Mr. FLAKE. Because I overgrazed and I overused the resource.
Mr. POMBO. So if you did manage that way and say BLM allowed you to continue to manage in that way, what would happen to your livestock herd?
Mr. FLAKE. It would be non-existent. They would die off. If I do not put some correct management to my herd, why I cannot stay in business, I cannot be economically feasible, I cannot finance myself there on the land any more.
Mr. POMBO. You say that the animals would die off, they would die off because of starvation?
Mr. FLAKE. Absolutely.
Mr. POMBO. Do you have any idea how long it would take an animal to get to the condition that—Mr. Balliette had pictures of animals that he claims starved to death. How long of a period of time are we talking about here that an animal does not have enough feed to get to that kind of condition?
Mr. FLAKE. To have them get to that kind of condition would take 3 or 4 months of absolutely no feed.
Mr. POMBO. Three or 4 months?
Mr. FLAKE. Well, it depends on the condition they were when they began to be stressed. If they were in fat condition, they could probably live off their back fat for 2 or 3 months before they went down. If they were thin and already stressed, then it is a matter of a couple of weeks before they are to that point.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMBO. Obviously the public has a concern about wild horses, that is why the Act was passed to begin with. Do you consider that humane, to manage in that way?
Mr. FLAKE. I certainly do not and that is why I feel affronted when they talk about leaving wild horses out there in uncontrolled numbers and degrading the range and suffering theirselves as a legacy of the west. That is not the legacy that was passed on to me. My ancestors managed their land and they managed their livestock and they would never allow anything like that to happen.
Mr. POMBO. One final question for you. What would you do if you did not have enough feed to feed the horses and cattle on your ranch?
Mr. FLAKE. I would sell them. I might, for a short time, step out and try to buy feed to hold on, but usually that is futile, you are better to sell and get out and send them to slaughter or to somewhere where they can be properly